In part, due to thinking about the post on the American Big Game Hunting forum about 'Here comes the end of Lead Bullets' I am curious--

What materials could give us close to lead weight/size ratios. As an example, the all copper bullets out there, are longer than their cup and corp and bonded bullet counterparts. Sometimes to the point of being problematic when needing short COL's and still near max powder charges to drive them.

I have some of the new E-tips from Nosler also, but have not weighed them and compared the length on a comprable geometry bullet, i.e. the Ballistic Tip vs the E-tip, or Accubond vs the E-tip. ( Accubonds are slightly longer than BT's according to a phone call I had with Nosler once)

I'm just curious if "THEY" are gonna get is into having to pay a buck a bullet? I actually am a little miserly when it comes to bullets, especially for practice. Barnes bullets are on the end of the price spectrum for me, and the few other bullets that are higher priced than them, I shoot rarely. Muzzleloader bullets especially can get costly if going the all copper route!

Just interested to hear theories and intel on the topic--maybe now's the time to start a new bullet making company????

The US Millitary is curently starting a trial run of bismouth core .223 at Lake City Arms close to my home town...it made big news in the local paper.

You can drop down to the next lighter weight bullets in the Barnes TSX's without losing anything. They are excellent...outstanding...bullets.

Have tried my share of Barnes, and like them generally. Having said that, I am just pondering other options.

Ted, where does 'bismuth' fall on the weight scale relative to lead?

Is it environmentally/ecologically 'inert'?

bismuth is next to lead on the chart.
however it is so brittle you have to add about 5-10%tin to it.
it is absorbable and is the main ingredient in pepto-bismol.
of course, it costs at least twice as much.
tungsten is a good alternative but it costs 15 times as much.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:

Ted, where does 'bismuth' fall on the weight scale relative to lead?

Is it environmentally/ecologically 'inert'?

I couldn't tell you a thing about the stuff with the exception that it has been used in shotgun shells for waterfowl. It and the propriatary "heavy shot" I have been told are the same or a bit heavier than lead.

Plastic impregnated sintered depleated uranium with a copper jacket.Maybe not tommorow but some day.

OR; A cleaved nose with a rear tungsten insert. roger

Roger, I always liked a 'cleaved nose'

You'd think something that was used up (depleted uranium) would be cheap!! My government arms guru says they use all they can get in the anti-tank/armor piercing stuff.....

Need to find something heavy and cheap that won't poison anything.........

quote:

'Here comes the end of Lead Bullets'

Are they worried the lead might kill something?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

'Here comes the end of Lead Bullets'

Are they worried the lead might kill something?

Not really. The political, liberal wonks that are pushing this say lead in the animal kills predatory/scavanging birds like Condors & hawks. Pure BS. I have only been able to recover a single bullet from a NA game animal. The bullets usually exit!
No, this is about making the shooting/hunting industry jump throuh more bureaucratic hoops. Make things more diff. for the gun owners so people will stop shooting & hunting all together. Pure unadulerated .
Bismuth seems the logic choice as it's already in the industry for water fowl shot. The tech. is already there for the mono metal bullets as well. I would be happy to change but not forced to.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

'Here comes the end of Lead Bullets'

Are they worried the lead might kill something?

Not really. The political, liberal wonks that are pushing this say lead in the animal kills predatory/scavanging birds like Condors & hawks. Pure BS. I have only been able to recover a single bullet from a NA game animal. The bullets usually exit!
No, this is about making the shooting/hunting industry jump throuh more bureaucratic hoops. Make things more diff. for the gun owners so people will stop shooting & hunting all together. Pure unadulerated .
Bismuth seems the logic choice as it's already in the industry for water fowl shot. The tech. is already there for the mono metal bullets as well. I would be happy to change but not forced to.

fredj338-- I agree with your post here 100+%

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:
...where does 'bismuth' fall on the weight scale relative to lead?...

Aluminum (Al)13 - 26.98
Tin (Sn)50 = 118.70
Antimony Sb)51 = 121.76
Tungsten (W)74 = 183.86
Platinum (Pt)78 = 195.09
Gold (Au)79 = 197.0
Mercury (Hg)80 = 200.61
Thallium (Ti)81 = 204.39
Lead (Pb)82 = 207.21
Bismuth (Bi)83 = 209.00
Polonium (Po)84 = ???
Astatine (At)85 = ???
Thorium (Th)90 = 232.05
Uranium (U)92 = 238.07

Seems like good old, non-harmful to the environment, plentiful Lead is going to be tough to beat for our use and cost.

I think I'll stick with Lead and Jacketed Lead. As usual, I don't need any Politically Correct Bullets(PCBs).
-----

By the way, the still ripening(picked when Green and stored in a box) Tomatoes sure add to this Recycled Turkey.

HC, that sounds great! --(the 'maters!)

I don't intend on changing unless absolutley forced, just trying to look into the crystal ball. Sounds like Bismuth is the thing--unless Pepto Bismal kills birds or something......wonder what Polonium or Thorium costs????

No idea at all on the costs or the basic properties of how any of the apparent alternatives might work.

Got a PM from a guy I believe, who(usually ) knows what he is talking about and he told me Tungsten is 1.5 times HEAVIER than Lead. If he is correct, then all the numbers I posted above are suspect. I copied them right off the Periodic Table found in an (old) Websters New Collegiate Dictionary.

If anyone else has a Periodic Table handy(may be in other dictionaries as well) look under the Periodic Table or Element Table and see if my Tables are goofed up.

Tungsten is also known as Wolfram.
-----

Many years ago I was wondering about what else could be used inside a Jacket. I know some Countries use a soft Steel for their FMJs and "may" use it as a Jacket material on some Expanding Bullets. It might do fine, but the idea of a Steel Bullet going down one of my Steel barrels, without damaging it, is difficult to grasp. Perhaps I'm too skeptical and they would work well.

I'd considered Aluminum(in a Jacket) as one way to get Blistering Velocity for a 30cal bullet inside either a typical size 200gr Jacket. No idea at all what it would actually weigh if one was created, but... if the Periodic Table was somewhat close, Al is about 7.7x lighter than Pb. And if we guess at how much a Jacket weighs(I don't have a clue) maybe it is 20% of a bullet(How `bout some help Vapo???) then the remaining Pb would be 160gr in a typical 200gr bullet and 40gr for the Jacket. Swap the Pb with non-alloyed Al and the core would be about 21gr(maybe). Stick it back in the typical 200gr bullet Jacket and now it creates a very long 30cal 61gr Bullet that really expands on impact. Soooo, an Alloy of some sort would be beneficial to add some weight and control expansion.

Then "Twist Rate" crossed my mind and I didn't give it much more thought. Aluminum is plentiful(cheap), would have a difficult time being attacked by the soda-pop carrying Tree/Condor/Wolf/SpottedOwl/SnailDarter/algore/obammer Huggers and can be Alloyed into any mallable state we would desire for expansion.

Federal has decided to put a Shiny Coating on some of their Bullets which looks like Cadmium to me, but I don't know what it is. I do know I don't want it going inside one of my barrels since I don't know how it would react with the Bore or how I'd get it out.

I seem to remember that Depleted Uranium is used in some Military applications. Perhaps the algore Huggers would like us all to use Depleted Uranium Bullets in a Jacket.

quote:

I'd considered Aluminum(in a Jacket) as one way to get Blistering Velocity

Meaning an aluminium cored bullet, right? Aluminium would be great as a solid as it is easily machineable and a bit harder than copper and in its alloyed state, pretty damn hard! But, it seems to abrade steel worse than sandpaper! (OK, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point). Then there would be 'smearing' in the bore - not sure how one would clean that out. I worked in an aluminium factory for some years and often wondered about it.

quote:

... use Depleted Uranium Bullets in a Jacket.

I know that was 'dig' but isn't depleted uranium supposed to be very hard as well as very dense? What is the problem of using radioactive material in a bullet anyway? We're trying to kill the critter aren't we? Not preventing it from getting cancer!

Hey 303Guy, I'd still want the AL or U inside a good old Jacket. I know how they engrave with the rifling and I also know I can clean the Jacket material from the barrel.

The other thread about making your own Expanding Solid bullets is interesting, but I'll pass on supporting any Politically Correct Bullets(PCBs).

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
[QUOTE] Aluminium would be great as a solid as it is easily machineable and a bit harder than copper and in its alloyed state, pretty damn hard! But, it seems to abrade steel worse than sandpaper! (OK, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point).

I get your point and you are right on. Aluminum solids or jackets would ware a 25-06 barrel out in probably less than 800 rounds. Abrasive is the right term. roger

Depleted uranium is no longer radioactive,(not dangerously--all metals are somewhat radioactive) but it is extremely heavy--GOOD for bullets--but it is also EXTREMELY expensive, basically unattainable for anyone except the military.

Aluminum is LIGHT, way too light for a bullet--a 'standard' weight bullet would be ridiculously long....

HC, I had always thought tungsten was heavier than lead,--just hearsay really, but maybe there is a MASS differential that I don't know the intel on that would make your friend correct. I doubt the periodic chart is wrong...

The real problem with Tungsten is again expense. Also, like most of the materials we are discussing, probably too hard unless alloyed properly, which may or may not help it's weight/hardness/length situation.

Political compliance is pissing me off to no end, it is unreal how many angles they are attacking the shooting sports from.

My question now is which state is best to live in if they try to register or worse yet come after our guns???!!! I know Texas is only in the 'union' by treaty, and maybe that's my answer---I always liked Texas anyway.......

What in Heavens name is the anti-gun lobby on about anyway?
I know some of us recklessly dangerous with guns and some of us look even scarier.

But statistically, we do a whole lot less harm to other people or the environment than the do-gooders do! (No scientific data required to back-up that claim - I made it up!) But just follow the 'news' and you get my drift. Hell, right hear where I live, we are no allowed to use lead shot over water due to 'heavy metal' contamination but they are busy draining and burying those same waters to build houses and factories! And that's less polluting how? (The roads are made from asphalt!)

At least in my country, the authorities responded to 'carelessness' by introducing a firearms licence system similar to a motor vehicle drivers licence. A good system in my opinion! (It covers things like target identification, legal aspects, and just good sense).

The weights listed above are molecular weights for the elements; the weight of one mole of the element in grams (or other equivalent units). When considering a replacement for lead the pertinent property is density which is not directly correlated to molecular weight. Just a heads up.

quote:

it is absorbable and is the main ingredient in pepto-bismol.

Really?!?!

quote:

unless Pepto Bismal kills birds or something.....

No silly that would be Alka Seltzer



Cal30

quote:

density which is not directly correlated to molecular weight

yup...

Thanks Whizzbang and Macifej, That explains it.

Why not Iron or Steel if we are going that far with all of this?! But to harvest the ore required, they are already bitching about how we mine!

So regardless of what we do there will always be one of the city born liberals who never put foot on dirt road out to save the environment. Not really understanding how things really work out there.
In my great state of Maine, if a number of deer are not harvested every year. Our forests cannot support them....But to them we are murders.
They just don't get it and probably never will.